modern early music -Reply -Reply
Jonathan Gilbert
>>> Trobador <trob...@aol.com> 09/24/97 10:30am >>>
Now we are approaching a sensitive issue -- issues of style to one side,
many performances of medieval music contain a lot of underlying material
that is in fact quite contemporary...
>>>
Well, in a sense they have to. At least for a lot of medieval dance music
and secular songs, if you limit your performance to what's actually
written in the manuscript and therefore authentic, you'll be omitting the
improvisational aspects of the way the music would have been
performed originally, right? But on the other hand, anything you do
improvise is automatically modern. I've actually been wondering how
performers are thinking about this these days, so I'm kind of glad it's
come up. It does seem to me that some things I've heard on recordings
of medieval repertoire are modern-sounding -- accompaniments that I
would call chord-based (like strummed chords on plucked instruments),
etc. But I don't generally know what's based on research and informed
opinion about what might have actually been done, and what comes from
the performers following the music where it takes them. The latter is
perhaps more in the spirit of the original musicians, but also winds up
being composed of more modern elements, because those are simply
what modern musicians have to work with ... yet with medieval music
particularly it seems impossible for research to uncover all facets of
performance, so there is the greater need for modern performers to fill in
the gaps in some way.
How much we actually think we know about medieval improvisation and
accompaniment nowadays? Informed opinion counts ...
Jonathan Gilbert
M. Schulter
Jonathan Gilbert <Jo...@dragonsys.com> wrote:
: Well, in a sense they have to. At least for a lot of medieval dance music
: and secular songs, if you limit your performance to what's actually
: written in the manuscript and therefore authentic, you'll be omitting the
: improvisational aspects of the way the music would have been
: performed originally, right? But on the other hand, anything you do
: improvise is automatically modern.
This is in fact a dilemma either in performing or in analysing the music.
For example, 13th-century theorists report various kinds of ornaments. To
use them does not seem "inauthentic" to me, although there is always a
possibility that a 20th-century realization might sound strange to the
original composers and theorists.
Similarly, 13th-century theorists discuss two-voice intervals and
progressions, and say some critical things about three-voice and
four-voice combinations that rarely get much press in modern analyses.
However, there's no material that I know of discussing multi-voice
progressions, although the actual music shows (at least to me) some
logical and vital patterns quite consistent with the theory of the period
available to us. If I attempt a synthesis, I am indeed developing a
"modern" theory of medieval progressions -- which may the worst choice,
except for others such as focusing on the presence or absence of
16th-century or 18th-century features.
The best I can do is come up with an analysis that _might_ be congenial to
the music and the theoretical frame of the period. Of course, this
involves a great risk of extraneous "modernism."
: come up. It does seem to me that some things I've heard on recordings
: of medieval repertoire are modern-sounding -- accompaniments that I
: would call chord-based (like strummed chords on plucked instruments),
: etc.
My judgment might vary radically depending on what kinds of "chords" are
being strummed. Christopher Page, for example, makes a good case that the
tunings of some of these instruments would be quite consistent with an
accompaniment featuring the favorite sonority of a complete 8/5
combination (e.g. d-a-d').
Page cites the work of Sarah Fuller on improvised "fifthing," and it's
quite possible to propose various accompaniments in this style.
Also, it has been suggested that the rondeaux of Adam de la Halle may
reflect a style of improvised accompaniment. It might be adventurous to
guess that such accompaniments could have been quite so subtle and
delightful, but why not, in some cases? Of course, some traits of Adam
such as his use of accidentalism may reflect specifically late
13th-century practices.
Certainly I can imagine a style of accompaniment related to the
13th-century motet rather as early continuo relates to the madrigal around
1600. Of course, this raises the issue of how well acquainted with the
theory and practice of polyphony the accompanists of that period might
have been.
: the performers following the music where it takes them. The latter is
: perhaps more in the spirit of the original musicians, but also winds up
: being composed of more modern elements, because those are simply
: what modern musicians have to work with ...
Of course, I might guess that the more familiar the modern interpreters
are with 13th-century verticality, the more likely they are to select
sonorities within the "ballpark," as it were. This doesn't guarantee that
it will be close to actual medieval practice, of course.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
J Peekstok
In article <60rpet$hrq$1...@vnetnews.value.net>, "M. wrote:
>For example, 13th-century theorists report various kinds of ornaments. To
>use them does not seem "inauthentic" to me, although there is always a
>possibility that a 20th-century realization might sound strange to the
>original composers and theorists.
>
>Similarly, 13th-century theorists discuss two-voice intervals and
>progressions, and say some critical things about three-voice and
>four-voice combinations that rarely get much press in modern analyses.
I find myself wondering if most musicians of the period paid any attention
at all to what the theorists had to say. Certainly a vast majority of
muscians today manage to play music without ever having read any books on
the subject.
John Peekstok
Beth Garfinkel
>I find myself wondering if most musicians of the period paid any attention
>at all to what the theorists had to say. Certainly a vast majority of
>muscians today manage to play music without ever having read any books on
>the subject.
That would depend on the age. For the most part, I think theory usually
follows practice, rather than the other way around. Of course, I'll
make an exception for much of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, because
people during those times just seem to have been in love with systems.
Beth
p.s. Oh, and I don't think it's fair to put Zappa in this thread,
because Francesco Zappa was a real 18th-century composer with his own
article in the New Grove Dictionary and all. He may or may not have
been related to Frank Zappa, who recorded a performance of some of his
works.
--
"Under the green wood tree/Who loves to lie with me/And tune his merry
note/Unto the sweet bird's throat/Come hither, come hither, come hither/
Here he shall see/No enemy/But winter and rough weather."
--William Shakespeare